Re: [round-display] [motion-path] Orientation of elements due to merging polar positioning and motion path

On 05/19/2016 05:51 PM, Shane Stephens wrote:
>> This seems very counter-intuitive to me. I would not expect
>> the coordinate system of translate/rotate/scale/transform
>> to be affected by motion at all. The goal is for these all
>> to behave as if they were independent right? But with this
>> ordering they're not.
> I'm not sure that is a goal. Would you expect motion rotation
> to affect transforms? Or transforms to affect motion? You have
> to pick one. I think translate/scale/etc. should act the same
> as the transform property, and we can't split that up to insert
> motion components.

I would expect them to be independent. I don't expect 'rotate'
to affect motion, nor motion to affect 'rotate'. I also don't
expect 'transform' to be affected by any of these, it should
apply on top as a final operation.

> Actually, based on your reactions here I'm leaning towards us
> adding a full motion transform function. There isn't a perfect
> ordering of transform and motion components where everything
> always works as expected but at least that way more advanced
> users can select an order.

While maybe adding a motion transform function is *also* a good
idea, I don't think it's a good substitute for independent
properties. Which is why we're introducing translate/rotate/etc.

I'm pretty sure the expectation is that these operations are all
independent, unless stacked within the 'transform' property itself.

>> What if you did
>> apply translate
>> apply motion
>> apply rotate
>> apply scale
>> apply transform
>> ?
> This would keep translate components in the global coordinate
> system but then
>   translate: 100px;
> and
>   transform: translate(100px);
> would sometimes act differently to each other, which is weird.

Agreed that's weird. They should be the same.

>> p.s. Please either use plaintext email on www-style, or
>> successfully harass the Gmail team to fix b/19483003 ?
> Ah, sorry :( I think that whatever messed up happened because I
> manually quoted an email to merge two replies. I won't do that
> again. Unfortunately inbox has no plain text option yet.

No, that is not the problem. You are not doing anything wrong. :)

The problem is that Gmail's email output HTML doesn't correctly
mark up quotations. (See bug above, which Gmail so far refuses
to fix because, I dunno. I keep having to fix up your quotations
when I reply because they are--from what I've been told by proxy--
adamant about not fixing this stupidly trivial bug.)


Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 17:56:44 UTC